Attieh Fard is a solicitor, a Conservative member, and candidate for West Surrey Unitary Council’s Elections. She was born in Iran and has lived in the UK for 26 years.
Tens of thousands of Britons and Iranians took to the streets of London on Saturday 11 April, urging President Trump to stay the course.
Among those chanting were men and women with mothers, brothers and sisters still in Iran, their voices carrying both anguish and hope.
Many of those I have spoken to, whether as clients or through United Christian Activists (UCA), fear the consequences of a deal between the United States and the Islamic regime in Iran. For some, the uneasy calm of a ceasefire has proved more distressing than the sleepless nights punctuated by the sound of bombs, which they believed were at least degrading the infrastructure of an oppressive state.
The recent peace talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan were both historic and deeply ironic. For decades, the regime in Tehran has led chants of “death to America” and has been widely accused of responsibility for the deaths of US servicemen. Since the Iran hostage crisis, its leaders have avoided direct engagement with their American counterparts. Yet now, after nearly half a century, representatives sat down in pursuit of a new chapter, albeit one shaped by a familiar list of demands. This apparent shift in posture appears less a transformation than a strategy for survival. Hence, it is clear why Iranians in pursuit of freedom were relieved when the talks failed.
There is little indication, however, that Tehran is prepared to abandon its support for groups such as Hezbollah or to reconsider its broader ideological ambitions. For many Iranians, the talks should never have been confined to nuclear capabilities, drones or regional proxies. They should have addressed the plight of millions who feel themselves held hostage by a regime under which they continue to yearn for freedom, peace and security.
The regime’s record casts a long shadow. Its history, stretching back nearly 47 years, is marked, according to critics and activists, by the mass killing of opponents, daily executions, and grave abuses against detainees. Allegations surrounding the killing of at least 36,500 protesters over two days in January 2026, alongside reports of torture and sexual violence, reinforce the belief among many that its methods remain unchanged. What is required, they argue, is not superficial reform but a fundamental rewriting of Iran’s constitution, one grounded in democratic principles, equality before the law, individual liberty, and a clear separation between religion and state. Ultimately, it must be the Iranian people who freely choose their political future, as enshrined in international law.
A parliamentary report in 2025 identified Iran as a national security threat and detailed alleged hostile activities on British soil. Since then, calls have intensified for the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or to introduce legislation with equivalent force. The Prime Minister’s reluctance to act swiftly has prompted criticism, with some questioning whether this hesitation reflects a lack of resolve or concern over the practical consequences of such a move.
In my view, the Government must increase public spending on national security and defence. The IRGC represents not only a threat to Iranians but to British citizens as well. For those in the UK, any sustained conflict between Iran and the United States may have tangible consequences, most immediately in energy prices, and likely in the broader cost of living. For those inside Iran, the economic toll is already severe. Yet many appear willing to endure it in the hope that this may mark the end of decades of violent repression and expansionist ideology, the final battle after which they hope to reclaim their country.
With US–Iran talks failing to produce a deal and Washington deploying additional forces to the Middle East, the Prime Minister faces a stark choice.
Will he move decisively to strengthen Britain’s military capability and national security, or continue to pursue engagement with a regime whose survival remains in question? Reports that he was forced to abandon the Chagos Islands agreement may suggest a renewed focus on security.
If so, why has it taken so long, and will he now act to proscribe the IRGC?
Attieh Fard is a solicitor, a Conservative member, and candidate for West Surrey Unitary Council’s Elections. She was born in Iran and has lived in the UK for 26 years.
Tens of thousands of Britons and Iranians took to the streets of London on Saturday 11 April, urging President Trump to stay the course.
Among those chanting were men and women with mothers, brothers and sisters still in Iran, their voices carrying both anguish and hope.
Many of those I have spoken to, whether as clients or through United Christian Activists (UCA), fear the consequences of a deal between the United States and the Islamic regime in Iran. For some, the uneasy calm of a ceasefire has proved more distressing than the sleepless nights punctuated by the sound of bombs, which they believed were at least degrading the infrastructure of an oppressive state.
The recent peace talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan were both historic and deeply ironic. For decades, the regime in Tehran has led chants of “death to America” and has been widely accused of responsibility for the deaths of US servicemen. Since the Iran hostage crisis, its leaders have avoided direct engagement with their American counterparts. Yet now, after nearly half a century, representatives sat down in pursuit of a new chapter, albeit one shaped by a familiar list of demands. This apparent shift in posture appears less a transformation than a strategy for survival. Hence, it is clear why Iranians in pursuit of freedom were relieved when the talks failed.
There is little indication, however, that Tehran is prepared to abandon its support for groups such as Hezbollah or to reconsider its broader ideological ambitions. For many Iranians, the talks should never have been confined to nuclear capabilities, drones or regional proxies. They should have addressed the plight of millions who feel themselves held hostage by a regime under which they continue to yearn for freedom, peace and security.
The regime’s record casts a long shadow. Its history, stretching back nearly 47 years, is marked, according to critics and activists, by the mass killing of opponents, daily executions, and grave abuses against detainees. Allegations surrounding the killing of at least 36,500 protesters over two days in January 2026, alongside reports of torture and sexual violence, reinforce the belief among many that its methods remain unchanged. What is required, they argue, is not superficial reform but a fundamental rewriting of Iran’s constitution, one grounded in democratic principles, equality before the law, individual liberty, and a clear separation between religion and state. Ultimately, it must be the Iranian people who freely choose their political future, as enshrined in international law.
A parliamentary report in 2025 identified Iran as a national security threat and detailed alleged hostile activities on British soil. Since then, calls have intensified for the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or to introduce legislation with equivalent force. The Prime Minister’s reluctance to act swiftly has prompted criticism, with some questioning whether this hesitation reflects a lack of resolve or concern over the practical consequences of such a move.
In my view, the Government must increase public spending on national security and defence. The IRGC represents not only a threat to Iranians but to British citizens as well. For those in the UK, any sustained conflict between Iran and the United States may have tangible consequences, most immediately in energy prices, and likely in the broader cost of living. For those inside Iran, the economic toll is already severe. Yet many appear willing to endure it in the hope that this may mark the end of decades of violent repression and expansionist ideology, the final battle after which they hope to reclaim their country.
With US–Iran talks failing to produce a deal and Washington deploying additional forces to the Middle East, the Prime Minister faces a stark choice.
Will he move decisively to strengthen Britain’s military capability and national security, or continue to pursue engagement with a regime whose survival remains in question? Reports that he was forced to abandon the Chagos Islands agreement may suggest a renewed focus on security.
If so, why has it taken so long, and will he now act to proscribe the IRGC?